Change by any other name is still change

ARCHIVES 2013

By MT Webmaster On Oct 20, 2013

So, back to my opening question: going by the just-concluded Umno party election, have we seen any change in Umno? Many of you will say ‘no’. I, however, will say ‘yes’. Umno has changed. It now realises what it needs. It understands that what it wants does not matter. What it wants will not keep Umno in power. And what Umno needs is to stay in power. And, to stay in power, it needs to give the Malays/Muslims want they want.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Two old friends bump into each other on the street after not having met for some time.

“Hey, Mike, how are you? Haven’t heard from you for some time.”

“Yeah, I’ve been away over the last few months. Been in rehab.”

“Yeah, I heard about that. And how is your drinking problem?”

“Oh, much better. I’m doing great. I don’t drink any more.”

“That’s certainly great to hear. Well done.”

“I don’t drink any less either.”

I suppose that can either be taken as an improvement or a setback, depending on how you look at things and whether you perceive half a glass of water as half-full or half-empty. And how would you perceive the just-concluded Umno party elections? A step forwards or a step backwards (or many steps as the case may be)?

That would probably depend on whether you think that not drinking any more is good when one does not drink any less either. Or maybe you think there is really no change for the better although things may not be getting any worse as well.

Again, how would you perceive the just-concluded Umno party elections? Has Umno moved forwards? Has Umno moved backwards? Or has there actually been no change?

To the alcoholic, not drinking any more is good even though he or she does not drink any less either. To the teetotaller, though, that would probably be seen as a setback. After months of rehab all you could achieve is to arrest the slide but not reverse it? That, to some, would be a disaster.

The Islamists look at Malaysia today and compare it to Malaysia of, say, 60 years ago, and would say that much has improved since the 1950s. Nowadays, most Muslim women dress ‘decently’ and wear a tudung compared to short skirts and bareback dresses as in the past. This, to the Islamists, is a great leap forward.

Liberals frown and sigh and say that Malaysia has gone backwards since the days or Saloma and P. Ramlee. What has become of Malaysia when Malay women today dress like Arabs in the desert whereas once they were so modern and sexy? And where has all the joget and ronggeng gone to, which was very much part of Malay culture back in the days before Merdeka?

People will change when there is a need for change. The question would be whether the change is for the better or for the worse. Better or worse would be how you perceive things and is not constant. The only constant thing, as they say, is change. But then if it changes how could it be constant? That is what we could probably call an oxymoron.

Umno would change if there were a need for change. Everything and everyone changes dependent on need. The only thing is: what would be this need? And this is where we enter the realm of the debate between wants and needs. There are wants and there are needs — and most times people are confused between the two.

You need a car because you cannot get to work without one, especially when Malaysia’s public transportation system sucks. But you do not need a BMW or a Mercedes Benz. That is not a need. That is what you want. Hence the difference between wants and needs, which most people cannot seem to differentiate.

The question of needs and wants would also come into play when we talk about the change, or lack of change, as the case may be, in Umno. Going by the just-concluded Umno party elections, has Umno changed? And if it has, has it changed for the better or for the worse?

Different people will have a different answer to this.

I would rather ask another question. Does Umno want to change? Or, more importantly, does Umno need to change?

Umno may want to change, or at least some people in Umno may want to see Umno change — for example, people such as Party President Najib Tun Razak and Youth Leader Khairy Jamaluddin. But can Umno change if many people see no need for change in Umno?

So, what then does Umno need before we talk about what Umno wants?

In the past, Umno depended on their partners in Barisan Nasional. That was in the days when Barisan Nasional could win general elections with landslide victories and with more than two-thirds of the seats in Parliament (plus the same in the state elections as well). Today, that is no longer possible.

The days of landslide victories and two-thirds majorities are gone. And, worse still, the days of the balance between Malay seats and non-Malay seats are also gone. Today, a Barisan Nasional victory just means an Umno victory with not much contribution from the non-Umno partners in the coalition — except for those in Sabah and Sarawak.

In the past, whatever Umno does and says must take into consideration the backlash or affect on MCA, MIC, Gerakan, PPP, and so on. Hence Umno must try to be seen as more centrist than rightist. The survival of the non-Umno parties in Barisan Nasional depended on this.

That, however, is no longer important.

In the past, the more ‘unIslamic’ Umno is seen the more support PAS will get — but then the non-Umno parties in Barisan Nasional will benefit. Hence, while Umno will lose some Malay/Muslim support to PAS, this loss can be covered or compensated by the gain in support that the non-Umno parties would get.

But now the non-Umno parties in Barisan Nasional can no longer hold their ground no matter what Umno does and says. And by being more liberal, and therefore be seen as less Islamic or less Malay-centric, would just send the Malays over to PAS.

So now what Umno needs to do is to win back the Malay support from PAS. Umno can no longer win back the non-Malay support. And for that to happen Umno must be seen as more Islamic and more Malay than PAS (and PKR, of course).

So what Umno wants (or what some people in Umno want) is no longer important. It is what Umno needs that matter. Needs come first and wants come later only when you can satisfy your needs.

So what Umno needs is to appear still relevant to the Malays as well as to the Muslims. What Umno wants is probably to appear more middle-of-the-road or more centrist. But it cannot appear too ‘compromising’ if that appearance would only mean the Malays will swing over to PAS.

If Umno thought that a ‘softer’ approach would help MCA, MIC, Gerakan, PPP and so on, then Umno would take this ‘softer’ approach. That, of course, is what Umno (or some people in Umno) would want to do if the situation permitted that.

But Umno can no longer worry about what it wants or what some people in Umno want. It needs to worry about what it needs. And what it needs is to stay in power. And the only way it can stay in power would be with the Malay/Muslim support. Hence Umno must be seen as more Malay and more Muslim than its competitors such as PAS and PKR.

In the recent general election, Umno came head-to-head with DAP in only one constituency — Gelang Patah. Even then it was a choice that Umno rather than DAP made. In all the other seats that Umno won, it was against an opposing Malay candidate.

Hence Umno’s survival depends on Malay votes, not Chinese votes. And Barisan Nasional’s survival, too, depends on the Malay votes that Umno gets, not the Chinese votes for MCA, MIC, Gerakan, PPP, etc. Hence it is what the Malays/Muslims WANT that will become Umno’s NEED. And if you can understand the difference between wants and needs you will understand this.

Sounds complicated, does it not? It is actually not that complicated. Umno needs to change. It needs to know on which side its bread is buttered. And Umno will change to ensure that the Malays see it as the champion of the Malays and Islam.

That may be good for Umno. It may even be good for the Malays/Muslims. But that does not mean it is also good for the country. But then since when do politicians do what is good for the country? Even opposition politicians will not do that. It must always be what is good for the party and the future of the party plus the survival of the party.